Another way to think about climate change --- lung cancer

If we start talking about climate change as something that won't really affect us for another 100 years - that is a losing battle. We must think about climate change as something that is affecting us today. One way to connect the dots is to think about the connection between climate change and lung cancer. Lung cancer kills today - this is not something we can ignore because it won't affect us. It is already affecting us.

What if we did lung cancer research and learned more about connection between our environment and lung cancer? Why aren't we doing the research? Is it that conservatives don't want to know the answer?

Lung Cancer is deadly (all U.S. info)

• The second leading cause of all deaths

• Causes 30% of overall cancer deaths

• 228,000+ people are diagnosed annually; almost 160,000 deaths annually.

• More deaths from lung cancer than breast, prostate and colon cancers combined.

• 1 in 14 people will be diagnosed with lung cancer

• Lung cancer often spreads before being diagnosed. Lung cancer diagnosis before it has spread is only 15%, compared to prostate cancer (81%) and beast cancer (60%).

• Nearly 80% of new lung cancer cases are former and never smokers –
• 20.9% current smokers, 60% former smokers, and 17.9% never smokers.
This is shocking - that almost 20% of new cases are never smokers and 60% are former smokers - yet, we have no screening test for lung cancer. We wait for it to progress to stage 4 before it is detected. Then it is too late to try to cure, there is only treatment which may prolong life by months.

• Pathogens, environmental contaminants, age, and genetics are all factors in its development (but all reasons not really understood – WHY?).

We spend pennies on lung cancer prevention research

• The least funded cancer in terms of research dollars per death of all the major cancers
(about $200 million from government - same amount Susan B. Komen alone raises for breach cancer research
• Only cancers where patients are routinely blamed as responsible for their condition.

More women die from lung cancer than breast, ovarian and cervical cancer COMBINED.

3. another cause of lung cancer

It is a byproduct in the manufacture of fertilizers and other things. The European exposure level is zero and the US it is 1 part per million.

It is also created when formaldehyde mixes with chloride ions in an acid atmosphere (such as a coastal salt water environment). Studies conducted by combining formaldehyde and chloride in containers did not result in BCME. Another study has shown, in a larger environment it forms in the headspace when using formaldehyde and chlorine. It causes oat cell lung cancer - the one that affects women the most and it has one of the shortest latency periods known.

It was studied after a crisis where several workers died of lung cancer after an accident caused the mixing of formaldehyde and chlorine. These were the small container studies.

4. Lung cancer survivor, here.

So double thanks for this thread.

I live in a city that has decided to allow fracking within city limits. Josh Fox's flammable faucet was filmed just a few miles south of here. My lung doctor has presented evidence to our city council, our planning commission, and our county commissioners. He's been condescended to and then dismissed, repeatedly. Those of us who have brought our concerns have been told that our documentation is "irrelevant".

The air is getting worse. I'm now up to 4L per hour on oxygen. More than one person has suggested that I move to a healthier place, and I have honestly considered doing so. The problem is -- THIS IS MY HOME. I'm a native of Colorado, born and raised. I shouldn't have to relocate because a bunch of greedy bastards are given destructive power by those who claim to work for me. And if I don't fight for MY HOME, why should I expect anyone else to?